Cholly vs. Soaphead Church: Who to Blame?
By Melissa Langer
A couple of days ago I was talking to some girls about a comment someone made that we had all found both disrespectful and mean. I argued that this person should not be excused for his comment, but the others disagreed, saying that because of his environment and the way in which he was raised, one must excuse his senselessness. Shortly afterwards I forgot the conversation, but remembered it once again when I was thinking about ideas for this blog. One day in class we discussed that Morrison’s account of Cholly’s earlier life might in some small way pardon, or at least provide some explanation for, Cholly’s appalling actions. Suddenly the fact that Cholly was abandoned by his mother, raised by a dying woman, humiliated by white men during an act which is traditionally supposed to be beautiful and pure, and dismissed by his own father seemed to trigger empathy in all of us; there was a story of human suffering behind the façade of a rapist. With the addition of these stories Morrison implores the reader to absolve (only partially) Cholly of our condemnation, for ones environment can oftentimes make him do crazy, outrageous things.
While Morrison asks us to at least try to understand how Cholly’s environment had perpetuated the rape of his daughter, she does not do the same with Soaphead Church, a man who takes advantage of small girls and occasionally claims superiority over God. According to the Morrison, Church came from a well educated, mixed blood family who traced their heritage back to a man named Sir Whitcomb. According to the novel, education and whiteness would be very advantageous qualities for prosperity in society. While Cholly was overlooked by his own father, Soaphead was "seldom overlooked by schoolmasters." Although his mother died during childbirth and his wife "simply left," Cholly "was saved from visible shattering by the steady hand of his father"(170) (also, his mother died, and did not abandon him like Cholly’s mother abandoned her son). Because Morrison shows Cholly as having such a heightened chance in life from the start, we are not required to forgive him for his later actions because they must be the product of his own nature, not of his environment. Morrison even says that "for all his exposure to the best minds of the Western world, he allowed only the narrowest interpretation to touch him" and he developed "a hatred of, and fascination with, any hint of disorder or decay" (169).
Another aspect of Soaphead that makes him more contemptible than Cholly is his claim to be equal, if not superior to, god. I suppose the severity of blasphemy is relative and depends upon ones own religious convictions, but the claim is still a serious one. According to Soaphead, God "had done a poor job" in designing an imperfect universe, and "suspected that he himself [Soaphead] could have done better" (173). He even says that he did what god "could not, would not do" by giving Pecola blue eyes. "I played You," he boasts in a letter to God (182). Is absolute blasphemy like that worse than rape? Although rape is a more grievous act because it physically wounds a person, Soaphead’s claim to divine power, coupled with his lewd acts is, nevertheless, quite despicable. Because of his "head start" in life (through education and family background), Morrison invites us to consider his acts more unforgivable than Cholly’s acts.
A couple of days ago I was talking to some girls about a comment someone made that we had all found both disrespectful and mean. I argued that this person should not be excused for his comment, but the others disagreed, saying that because of his environment and the way in which he was raised, one must excuse his senselessness. Shortly afterwards I forgot the conversation, but remembered it once again when I was thinking about ideas for this blog. One day in class we discussed that Morrison’s account of Cholly’s earlier life might in some small way pardon, or at least provide some explanation for, Cholly’s appalling actions. Suddenly the fact that Cholly was abandoned by his mother, raised by a dying woman, humiliated by white men during an act which is traditionally supposed to be beautiful and pure, and dismissed by his own father seemed to trigger empathy in all of us; there was a story of human suffering behind the façade of a rapist. With the addition of these stories Morrison implores the reader to absolve (only partially) Cholly of our condemnation, for ones environment can oftentimes make him do crazy, outrageous things.
While Morrison asks us to at least try to understand how Cholly’s environment had perpetuated the rape of his daughter, she does not do the same with Soaphead Church, a man who takes advantage of small girls and occasionally claims superiority over God. According to the Morrison, Church came from a well educated, mixed blood family who traced their heritage back to a man named Sir Whitcomb. According to the novel, education and whiteness would be very advantageous qualities for prosperity in society. While Cholly was overlooked by his own father, Soaphead was "seldom overlooked by schoolmasters." Although his mother died during childbirth and his wife "simply left," Cholly "was saved from visible shattering by the steady hand of his father"(170) (also, his mother died, and did not abandon him like Cholly’s mother abandoned her son). Because Morrison shows Cholly as having such a heightened chance in life from the start, we are not required to forgive him for his later actions because they must be the product of his own nature, not of his environment. Morrison even says that "for all his exposure to the best minds of the Western world, he allowed only the narrowest interpretation to touch him" and he developed "a hatred of, and fascination with, any hint of disorder or decay" (169).
Another aspect of Soaphead that makes him more contemptible than Cholly is his claim to be equal, if not superior to, god. I suppose the severity of blasphemy is relative and depends upon ones own religious convictions, but the claim is still a serious one. According to Soaphead, God "had done a poor job" in designing an imperfect universe, and "suspected that he himself [Soaphead] could have done better" (173). He even says that he did what god "could not, would not do" by giving Pecola blue eyes. "I played You," he boasts in a letter to God (182). Is absolute blasphemy like that worse than rape? Although rape is a more grievous act because it physically wounds a person, Soaphead’s claim to divine power, coupled with his lewd acts is, nevertheless, quite despicable. Because of his "head start" in life (through education and family background), Morrison invites us to consider his acts more unforgivable than Cholly’s acts.
posted by Ms. Jefferson at 5:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home